1. In America, we have the luxury of plentiful, affordable energy and full bellies - and so we have groups who are raising a billion dollars a year criticizing modern science and technology. Most media outlets just play along but UPI recently took a critical look at one topic; the claims of health effects related to modern natural gas extraction.
It's a topic we've look at with interest, but there's just nothing there, as UPI notes. Read more in Studies blaming ailments on Pennsylvania fracking are flawed
2. We covered a study co-authored by Dr. Andrew Kniss and noted that the yields were substantially lower with organic food. On a global scale, it means the entire country of China would die without modern agricultural science. But Kniss wanted to talk about "sustainability" - yes, it's a fuzzy, non-specific term that is invoked to be a maddening array of conflicting ideas, but even taking it the way rational people do, he makes the point in response to our article that yield is not the only factor.
Well, you can bet in the countries that need food most, yield is absolutely the primary consideration. But in America we can talk about nuance.
3. Is Facebook censoring science? Maybe, maybe not, but the weight of evidence shows their hand-picked moderators - recently replaced due to controversy - were overwhelmingly on one side of the political aisle. And that means they were overwhelmingly picking and choosing when to accept the scientific method. So it surprises few who are on the pro-science side to learn Facebook responded to complaints from fans of supplement huckster Joe Mercola, D.O., and took down a page criticizing supplements.
They put it back up, after an investigation, but that the system is so easily gamed, and that anti-science groups are so willing to do it, is the subject of an article by us in National Review.
